Feb 16, 2011

Having a thorough sense of humor remains a non-negotiable necessity to survive in today’s blog world. If you take yourself too seriously—or more significantly, the opinions others imagine of you too seriously—you’ll bleed out slowly and painfully I assure>>>

In all honesty, I thought the piece was entirely innocuous so far as my own words were concerned. It’s true the thread got pretty hot—hotter I see now than I normally allow (actually I still have not read most of the comments. Domestic issues have kept me uncommonly occupied presently. Hence, I have very little time to do anything other than deal with the matter at hand). Even so, I used a word picture image which apparently blew James White’s big toe off. Offering my evaluation of one of the cross-examinations he had with biblical skeptic, Bart Erhman, I wrote:

“I know little to nothing about textual criticism. But I do know when someone is bluffing with an answer. James White embarrassed evangelicals with this poor dialog with Ehrman. Ehrman walks away looking like an accomplished scholar. On the other hand, White crawls away like a whipped mongrel” (embolden added)

Sweet Georgia peaches!

One would think I made the lowest, most evil remark imaginable. Making the analogy of a pup defeated in a fight sent Pierce and White through the second ceiling. Why? I’m not sure, exactly. It’s only a word image, an image to be honest that is hardly creative and actually cliché.** Perhaps it’s because White thinks I implied Erhman was a real scholar and he was not (for the record, that was not implied). But since White explicitly said, “I don’t care what Peter Lumpkins thinks” (which you will note in the broadcast), I cannot think that would be a legitimate reason.

Even so, respond Pierce & White did.

Below is the clip from the DL broadcast which focuses on me. Listen to it. It’s only about 11 mins; then scan through a few observations I put together

White begins by asserting he could not recall mentioning me for months. O.K. So? Is it standard protocol to deal with an issue or address an interest if and only if the particular subject matter of interest one possesses has addressed you by name first? I cannot recall reading this protocol anywhere. Nor do I think James White waits until someone mentions him first before he deals with an issue he thinks is significant. If I am mistaken, I’m sure his supporters will correct me. If not, what can one make of such a weird assertion?

What’s more, White claims I’m obsessed with him and his ministry. The reason? Well, apparently I want to do what he’s doing. Really? O.K....

Note also that apparently James White thinks that unless someone is highly trained in the particular field of inquiry about which the debate topic focuses, one has no business making any judgments whatsoever concerning whether a debate was a good one or a poor one, whether a debater did well in cross-examination or whether a debater did poorly. I guess that means that in all future debates James White performs, no one should show up unless he or she is skilled in the discipline White debates. So much for debates being a useful tool for either evangelism (which is often mentioned by White’s supporters) or to sort through some heavy information (without a background knowledge base, the debate would be useless). As I mentioned in the comment thread, we must resist the kind of elitist thinking embedded in White’s presumption.

Other than that, there’s really few surprises in the DL broadcast. According to White, Peter Lumpkins:

“has no capacity to engage the subject”

“known as ‘Lumpy” on the chat channel” (ah, and I thought White hadn’t mentioned me in months, and here I have my own nickname in his chat-room. What’s up with that? I also wonder what they say about me. Probably nothing since I don’t matter to them ;^)

“lacks any and all balance in anything that he says” (anything? anything?? O.K...)

“does not do anything [presumably in ministry] comparable to what he does”

“[embraces] anti-Reformed bigotry”

“loathes the freedom of God in salvation”

‘loathes anyone who preaches it”

“loathes anyone who promotes it”

“vile [or “bile”—hard to tell] flows from him out of hatred”

“[embraces] radical synergistic bigotry”

“[robbed] of any semblance of rationality”

I think I got most of the niceties in.

Here's what White should realize but apparently doesn't: even if every single barb were true about me personally, what under the blue sky difference does any of it make toward whether or not James White performed well in his debate against Bart Erhman--at least in the cross-examination I referenced? It doesn't. Rather than accept the fact that some do not agree with him that he destroyed Erhman, he simply flames the one who disagrees with him. And, the reason White can get by with responding like this on the internet is there are no rules of exchange to guide him--or perhaps more appropriately, disqualify him as a debater.

Someone said it well to me once,

"James White is a fairly good debater. But when he is not in a formal setting, he spends his time flaming everyone in shouting distance"

Those interested may take a look at this earlier list of niceties about me and compare with the list above. As you can see, James White is only saying about those who disagree with him [in this case, me] what he’s habitually logged before. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t go back and quote-mine the post linked above to make sure he was being consistent with what he formerly wrote. Nothing like consistency, ah James?

You gotta love it or you’d go nuts.

With that, I am…

Peter

*some theologians are convinced White embraces what’s known as Hyper-Calvinism

**my title also contained word imagery "honking the nose"; but again this is so uncreatively routine literary imagery depicting the idea that somebody just got the beans beat out of them. How could this be offensive?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

From the moment my hearing first laid ears on white last year (it was his hyper-calvinist eisegeses of john 3:16) until this fear-mongering clip you've linked, I've come to the conclusion that mr. white suffers from Delusions of Grandeur. he would do well to humble himself or grow thicker skin.

In all honesty, Dr. J(I mention that name again because Mr. White is as qualified to be called a doctor as the basketball player Dr. J) continues to remind us that he's just as vicious as we claim he is.

Peter, I do want to thank you for standing up to White and his followers. You certainly have endured a lot over it. You must have been one of the nice kids who stood up for kids being bullied=) Let me guess, you honked the bully's nose and he left you guys alone?:)

Is anyone else wondering if Lumpkins is on the verge of becoming the replacement obsession for Ergun Caner?

Still waiting for an apology from Rich Pierce and White for their unchristlike and mean-spirited insults on the looks of mormon women.

Peter, the irony here is that White (not a real doctor he just plays one on the internet) is screaming and stamping his feet proclaiming himself to be the bestest, smartest, holiest of christian men ever and his behavior against you shows exactly the polar opposite of WWJD. Even assuming everything he claims about you is true does he really think that gossiping about you in some super secret chat room has some biblical foundation? Calling you all kinds of names with such hate and vitriol is the way a so-called Minister of the Gospel is supposed to act???

The problem with what you've done here this time Peter is that the whipped dog image is a direct attack against the man's manhood. For a misogynist like White (not a real doctor he just plays one on the internet) you've punched below the belt and bruised the super de duper "I'm a real man and pretend doctor" ego. Men who have to stoop to attacking women and their looks are a little too sensitive when you portray them as less than a manly man. And having seen White (not a real doctor he just plays one on the internet) it's a serious case of pot meet kettle when he starts attacking anybody on this green earth over their appearance.

Peter, you don't have to post this is you don't think it wise as it will cause the Whitehead Cultists to explode, but I notice in these comment streams that there are posters here who are new to all things James White(not a doctor he just plays one on the internet) For those who want to know a little more about James White and his over the top anger they might be interested in googling James White and Patty Bonds. Mz. Bonds is Jimmy's(not a real doctor he just plays one on the internet)sister and she's told some tales about the dysfunction in the family of origin of ol Jimmy boy which explains a lot about his very noticeably apparent psychological issues.

All jokes aside, I hate that we even have to talk about this, and it's even a joking matter. Doesn't Mr. White realize that his actions and claims make him the subject of jokes and not taken seriously? What does it take for him to just stop claiming he's a doctor and act appropriately? We end up getting associated with him whenever he makes a fool of himself.

Thanks. And yes, I did have my bouts with bullies in school. I think you've pegged the situation with White among Southern Baptists quite well. I decided about 18 mos. ago we'd feared White wrath long enough.

The last knock out puncher to James White on the internet was Mr. Bob Ross, a convictional Calvinist himself. Ross could take poor White's arguments and make gummy worms out of them. White dis-fellowshiped Ross similar to the way I am now "shunned."

@Roy,
For the record, I don't think Rich Pierce's comments regarding "the looks of Mormon women" were aimed at Mormon women in general. If you are referencing the comment that I think you are, Rich was commenting on the looks of some of Brigham Young's wives and comparing them to "Russian women."

Also for the record, I don't think any of Brigham Young's wives looked anything remotely like Anna Chapman.

Before you point out that “this video was put up by a Muslim!” Yes, we know, and we also know it was Mormons that took pictures of the hole in the wall that James White calls his seminary. It is still James White and Rich Pierce who are saying the things being said. That doesn't make it any less true. Unfortunately, until Reformists and Calvinists like yourself deal with James White, we'll be left to have unsaved people point out his continuous and obvious unchristlike behavior. And, of course, you will continue to be associated with both his corruption and his unchristlike behavior, as many will assume all Calvinists, if not all Christians, are like he.

Unfortunately, it is true. I feel for him and his family and hope some real healing takes place.

And, yes, White appears oblivious to the way he speaks to and toward others. If you listened to the broadcast, recall what he said concerning Bart Erhman--Erhman spoke condescendingly to him [White} as well as the audience. I could not believe my ears. White accusing someone else of speaking condescendingly about anybody? I almost fell out of my seat when he said that. I recall hearing in a college 101 psy class about a behavior many people unconsciously do like project onto others the very habitual behavior one finds unacceptable about ones self. There's a technical name for it. Whatever the case, what a Georgia hoot!

I am reformed and have no way of "dealing with James White". Neither do other reformed folks EXCEPT those who are in his circle.

As one of the reformed folks, I e-mailed and suggested, in that he publically sinned, he should publically repent of his comments towards those women. I was listening to the show when he said it. I'm clueless as to how he can't see this (in that he is an Elder). All men still have that sin nature to deal with.

Please be careful how you "paint a picture" of reformed folks so you don't also sin.

Considering his entire circle is composed of reform people, I'd say you certainly could do some type of intervention, or at least stop supporting the guy, and therefore his ego. I know you guys are a close knit group, and I know if some of your leaders stopped supporting him, it would do something.

I think the reason he can't see it is the same reason he can't see the wrong in anything else he does, and NO ONE seems able or willing to confront him.

I have no idea how you said me saying that approaches sin, maybe you're in sin? See how that works when we make up sins?

Peter, unlike the actor in House, JW doesn't seem to know the difference between reality and playacting.

Eric, unfortunately, the sin of misogyny is not the only sin of which JW is guilty - he is notorious for his overinflated ego and pride and it won't matter who points out his need for repentance, his pride will not allow him to admit any wrong doing whatesoever. Unfortunately, JW has cultivated a cult full of followers who like him think the rules simple don't apply to them.

Peter has never painted with such a broad brush that all reformed folk are like JW but unfornately just as Christians are being painted by the nonChristians that JW insults and demeans, so too the reformed have to deal with the witness that JW paints of the reformed. No it's not fair but that's the way the ball bounces. Notice the majority of his insults against Peter have to deal with the fact that Peter is not reformed.

@Roy,
I don't think I said anything particularly derogatory about Mormon women. If anything I said was taken that way, then I do apologize. I'm not defending White or Pierce's comments. I just don't think they were nearly as insulting as some people are making them out to be.

I have some pictures of my own ancestors from about the same period as the women in question (Brigham Young's wives.) The least attractive of Brigham's wives looks like a pinup model compared to some of my ancestors. It was a reality that hard times back then sculpted people's appearance. Many of those Mormon women endured great hardship traveling to Salt Lake. It shows.

I personally don't see where making a joke about women who have been dead now for a hundred years is all that insulting. That's me. I honestly see the real insult to be toward Russian women. Why? Because there are real live Russian women living today.

I have made two other comments regarding this particular subject. In both, I pointed out that the real offense is not against Mormon women, but against Russian women. I honestly feel that using Russian women as a gauge for unattractiveness is out of place.

I remember an old Pepsi commercial from back in the the 1980s where "Russian women" were parading in a "fashion show." I was a kid. It was funny. Now that I'm and adult... not so much. It's a stereotype that needs to be eradicated.

So why is everyone up in arms about a perceived insult toward some ladies who have been dead now for over a century, but the indirect insult toward women of an entire country goes unnoticed?

It think the answer is that many people have such a bias against Russian women that they don't hear the insult. If anything, White's comment reflects those very same biases that lead people to immediately take offense toward what White said about long-dead Mormon ladies while ignoring what was said about Russian women.

I think White's and Pierce's comments were intended to be humorous and they should be judged as such. Were they crass? Yes. Out of place? Yes. Were they funny? Not really. No. Not really at all. Worthy of all the attention that they raised? Probably not.

Incidentally... in reading this site's policy regarding "anonymous comments," I'd like to fully disclose who I am... My name is John Patrick Smith. Honestly, using a unique identifier like "jaiotu" is much less anonymous then "John Smith."
I was a Journalist 2nd Class in the U.S. Navy. In navy abbreviations, that is "JO2." Get it? J (jai) O (o) 2 (tu.) jaiotu. If you Google "John Smith" or "John Patrick Smith" you will never find me. Google "jaiotu" and thats me.
Just wanted to make it clear that I'm not "hiding" behind an internet nickname. I use it for the exact opposite purpose.

"@Roy;
You're right. Rich Pierce's comparison of the attractiveness of some of Brigham Young's wives to the looks of Russian women was totally uncalled for. Rich should apologize to Russian women everywhere. There is no room for humor on the Internet.

Posted by: jaiotu | 2011.02.14 at 06:44 PM "

First off, you're making light of White's constant attacks on anyone he disagrees with, even in the most personal and hateful of ways.

I have a sense of humor, but this is about a bigger issue. Specifically, that those in the James White cult will defend EVERYTHING He does. No scripture constrains they are he, and who is anyone else to tell them what the bible says about how we should act? They are the only ones with the right theology!

Like I said, this is a mindset you see in a lot of Catholics..."we wrote the bible, who are you to tell us what it says?" Conveniently, that's how they avoid accountability.

How was I "making light of White's constant attacks on anyone he disagrees with?" I was referring to one comment, and one comment only. My comment had a two fold purpose: First, to point out that focusing on the perceived insult toward long dead Mormon women ignored the fact that if there were any real insult, it was toward Russian women who were being presented in the joke as being the measure of homeliness. Second was to point out that it was a joke. In poor taste yes.

I'm glad that I've been in this conversation because it is causing me to rethink why I'm willing to give a pass toward a joke about women's appearances to begin with... weighing in the balance the real need for people to lighten up a bit against the need by those in the public ministry to not add offense to the preaching of the Cross, which the world takes as an offense in itself.

I quit reading and listening to James White Over 5 years ago when I still lived in Ohio. He is quite tendentious. At times his language is violent against those he disagrees with (this is not limited to White either. Read R.C. Sproul when you get a chance).

Not long before I quit reading on his website he had a transcript posted of a debate between himself and a Mormon. He lost the debate. Soundly. I sent an email to the site pointing out his poor forensics and showing why he lost. The next day it was as though the debate never took place. He nuked the entire thing.

White is a good debater, when he can set the conditions. When he can't, or he blunders and doesn't draw them tight enough to suit his knowledge and abilities, then he gets trounced. While I do not agree theologically with David Cloud, he has demonstrated the correct attitude to have towards contentious men like James White - he refuses debate.

I have actually read John Calvin's "Institutes." Frankly, there is some good stuff in there, but there is some absolutely horrific stuff as well. IN my opinion, Calvin's predestinarian soteriology is utterly unbiblical and insulting to the God who sent His son into the world to die and make provision for the forgiveness of sin. However, anyone that disagrees with it is called a "Pelagian" by the likes of people like White and Sproul. It is their doctrines that are abberant, and I wear their label as a badge of honor. Particlularly so since Pelagius didn't teach Pelagianism.